Watch out, leftists: “Hate speech” laws have unintended consequences

Rebel Staff

Such laws are unfortunately commonplace in the West, and their proponents don’t realize that like everything, these rules have unintended consequences that can actually boomerang on their left-wing proponents.

Tony
We had a law that was struck down – Spreading False News. I think, rather than having it removed from the books as the current Justice Minister announced just today, it should be brought back. It’s better than hate speech, because truth – contrary to Lefty relativism, can be defined. “Hate” on the other hand, is objective and therefor much more open to abuse. And “groups”, can sue civilly for defamation, without the need for hate speech laws. Teachers, have a Fiduciary Duty, a Duty of Care. They’re abusing their Trust to use their position to teach falsehoods and you can sue or seek a private charge for Breach of Trust. In other words, there are ways to achieve the things you want, without the abusive Hate Speech laws.

Bravo. We have “rule of favouritism” and rule of “little guy vs big guy”.

Opinions are opinions, but stuff like holocaust denial is a matter of changing or denying history. These perversions of facts eventually seep into the way history is told and thought of. For instance, facts about the Republican party, which (historically) wanted equality for newly freed slaves and to give them land ownership rights is deeply buried history. Republicans are painted as bigots, racists and intolerant, when it was actually the Democrats that came up with stuff like KKK. The recent generation of educators is retelling the WW2 bombing of Japan such that it paints the US as terrorists. They manage this distortion of truth by changing or omitting key historical facts in order to promote a globalist agenda of spreading white guilt and a “we need to make restitution to the rest of the world by destroying the west” thinking that millennials now have.

I think there should be consequences for falsifying history, especially for anyone who has the eyes and ears of the public and who purposefully distorts or lies about facts to achieve a purpose. Take, for instance, the cultural genocides going on in the Middle East. Is it fair for one group to wipe another’s history away and recreate it with untruths or lies for future generations to learn instead of the truth? (We even now have people believing that Jews have o historical connection to Jerusalem including many in the UN). I’m okay with people saying I don’t like (group x) because…. as long as they are not slandering the group with lies and false history. Just like if your neighbour made up stuff about you that was damaging to your reputation to ruin you, you would have legal recourse. Why shouldn’t groups have the same legal rights?